Dáil debates

Wednesday, 14 June 2006

Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Bill 2006 [Seanad]: Second Stage (Resumed).

 

5:00 pm

Photo of Trevor SargentTrevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)

For many, the Bill marks a sad day. It is an admission by Government that it has not managed to bring the people with it in regard to projects and infrastructure that it believes strongly need to be developed. It is, therefore, taking away the consultation and planning element that would otherwise have ensured maximum participation. That is not just to be regretted but is also a recipe for crude decision making in the future. It will lead to decisions that will have to be revisited in time.

The issues of transport, energy, airports, harbours, landfills, incinerators, waste and water projects are all covered by the Bill. The legacy of the Government has been to favour developments which are very energy intensive and ultimately unsustainable. For example, transport spending has an unbalanced ratio of 4:1 in favour of the roads programme. We need roads but we also need a balance, in particular given the high cost of energy, so rail, which is needed, will become an energy efficient means of transport. We are not getting the rail infrastructure we need, such as the western rail corridor or the railway to Navan with links to Kingscourt, as Deputy Crawford noted. The re-opening of the railways would not cost as much as building new roads.

Much of the infrastructure that has been developed would indicate that the Bill is a recipe for driving a coach and four through the sustainability that should be at the heart of Government decision making. In my constituency, a new runway at Dublin Airport will compound the imbalance between development in the east and the west while Shannon and Cork are crying out for increased business. The runway at Dublin Airport will compound the Minister's problems, as well as problems in my constituency in terms of congestion. The Bill will not answer the needs of the country given the track record of the Government to date.

The Government favours a big is beautiful approach. It favours a large landfill instead of many smaller segregation, recycling and recovery operations. It favours a large incinerator rather than waste reduction technologies, composting and smaller-scale operations that would make better use of energy.

There is a policy issue in this regard, which is opposed by my party, but there is also a legal issue in the context of the Aarhus Convention, based on Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration of 1992, which states:

Environmental issues are best handled with the participation of all concerned citizens, at the relevant level. At the national level, each individual shall have appropriate access to information concerning the environment that is held by public authorities, including information on hazardous materials and activities in their communities, and the opportunities to participate in decision-making processes. States shall facilitate and encourage public awareness and participation by making information widely available. Effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings, including redress and remedy, shall be provided.

That convention was enacted in 2005 by an amendment of EU Directive 2003/35/EC, which regulates how we assess the environmental impact of proposed developments. Article 10a of that directive states that, first, "members of the public [shall] have access to a review procedure before a court" or other impartial body, second, environmental bodies shall be deemed to have an interest in this decision-making process and, third, the "procedure shall be fair, equitable, timely and not prohibitively expensive".

On the last point, a judicial review is seen as being available if one is dissatisfied with a development. However, the cost of going through a judicial review would mean it is against the Aarhus Convention. I ask that the Government would rethink the Bill and consider the position in other countries, for example, Sweden, where there was a national plan to get away from reliance on oil. The Bill is moving in the opposite direction. It suggests that we want to proceed with the motorway programme and incinerators, and it does not rule out nuclear power, although the Government has stated that is not on the agenda. However, a thermal plant as proposed in the Bill could easily fit under that description.

The "big is beautiful" approach is not the energy efficient approach. Whatever one's political viewpoint, there is a geological reality which must be dealt with, either willingly or eventually by recognising that the writing is on the wall. The big is beautiful approach includes Thornton prison, for example. A sum of €30 million of public money has been spent just to buy the agricultural land. This is not a good use of public money; it is not good for the people who are supposed to be rehabilitated and it is not good for the local community. The Bill is an attempt to drive a coach and four through the best interests of local communities, a move that must be opposed.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.